[Sichr]

Hell, yesterday I came up with idea of Ludite lab developing [insert whatever contagious] that causes Sensitive system in affected individuals.
Multiple run ideas follow - from seek and destroy, acquire the sample, add sequence that modify [ilness/toxin] that it causes allergic reaction for all brands except for [insert favourite producer], extraction of chief designer etc etc etc.
I can see container hit during the firefight by some careless gurd/runner using full automatics/shotgun/explosives, affecting even whole team with this kind of quality

[Sugar]

 Mercer-"This assumes a pretty big talent pool.  From a game perspective it makes sense; if a player makes a poor character that player can simply make another character.  But it seems like competent people are always in short supply.  Having someone who is good at their job, who is willing to risk their life and back you up in a tense situation and who will shut up about it later may well outweigh them having the social graces of a wet glob of phlegm.  (Admittedly, my metaphors need work.) "

I think having a non-face character is a lot different than having a non-team player. I think it adds color and dynamic to a run to have some characters that can't do everything. However, I would advise against letting it seep into the group dynamic. Having one person play the hot-headed 'I walk alone' type makes for hard game play for other pcs. I have been in that position before and having to choose between using outside game info to include an out of game friend vs spending in game actions plotting against a team member you can't fully trust makes you remember why you chose Shadowrun and not Paranoia.

[Mirikon]

Indeed. Having a lone wolf kind of character in a group is fine, so long as they don't disrupt the group dynamic. An example of a lone wolf type that actually works in a group would be Wolverine (yes, I'm going across genres here, but bear with me). He does cause friction within the team, sure. But when the chips are down, he (usually) falls in with the plan, and he is pretty much the best at what he does. That, and his loyalty to the team, make them overlook the fact that he's not exactly socially adept.

In the end, it boils down to finding someone that works with your group. If someone is disruptive to the group dynamic, then even if they are the best of the best, you're going to be better off finding someone more compatible. Regarding the 'good help is hard to find' aspect, however, that depends on what the disruptive party's skill set is. Magic is fairly rare. Technomancers are also really rare, though hackers can do most of the same tricks. But if your specialty is 'shoot things until they stop moving', then there is a ton of talent out there.

[Mercer]

A disruptive player will be disruptive no matter how his or her character is built.  A player who isn't disruptive (in other words, "a player who shows up to play") probably won't be a problem no matter what he or she is playing. 

I've very rarely seen a character problem that isn't a player problem.  Some characters may not mix well, but that's much more about the concepts (like say, a cold-blooded assassin and a white hat cowboy type) than it is about the builds.  A group of players who want to play together will incorporate their characters into the group; they'll work together because we show up to play.

When we sit down at the table, everything we do is a conscious decision.  We can make up reasons why our characters will go on the run together, or we can make up reasons why they won't.  I don't know why a player would sit down at the table and then come up with reasons why they don't want to play, but if that's what they're doing, it's not a character-problem. 

[Dracain]

Ill ask you about this: Do you use Black IC in your games? Do you use Shadow spirits? Posession power? Bug spirits? Infection? Firearms? Manipulation spells? Combat spells? Shedims inhabiting  bodies of astraly projected mages? Mutations? EMP? Malware? Psychotropic matrix attacks? Biological warfare? Magic background?...add whatever else...this are all ways to cripple character, change its course of developement and so on. Sure, you can also Kill the character...i.e insects are good for this wellthis are things that happen quite often during my runs, because those things are quite common threats in the sixth world. From time to time I kill the character, from time to time I impose some story elemnt on one of them he didnt asked for, just because I want to.
I simply dont agree that character is completely and totaly under player`s control. Not after character creation is done. In that moment, he is thrown into the world full of dangers and his further existence relies in the interaction within this world, and most time it means character needs to deal with lot of shit, because he/she/it made a choice to become Shadowrunner: Terorris/criminal operative acting in the most dangerous business there is.

I also think it's a matter of what stat or weakness you are imposing upon the player, and has a lot to do with the player, like ArkangelWinter said.  I just think you shouldn't take a runners primary skill away from him or her.  I guess I just don't think that if I player has one skill they have dedicated large chunks of BP and karma into, the skill shouldn't be messed with unless we are talking extreme circumstances.  Also, while that character doesn't need to be completely under the players control, they should be the prime controller of the character, and when messing with the max cap of someones primary skill, you may want to go up to the player and ask if they are cool with you doing that before you do so, simply because you don't want the player to feel like their character got completely hijacked and taken from them.  The player must have a chance to defend themselves or get out of the situation, not just SURPISE the mob shows up at your doorstep and beats the crap out of you and you wake up with a bomb in your head. 

@Sichr: I referenced my earlier post in this thread, where I said I gave a player's ninja style char paraplegia through in-game events and he thought it was a great growth opportunity. He ended up fulfulling a similar role as a bitter, crippled rigger as he had as a fun-loving burglar. But other players might not be so keen on having their concepts trashed, so I hit them with contact death, nuyen lose, housing destruction, girlfriend rape, personal rape, family death etc. just dont warp their sheet because unlike my first example, they dont think getting randon negative BP is as fun as dealing with a plot problem that doesnt cripple their sheet per se.

Well if the player did little to nothing wrong and they still lose something, I can see why they would be upset that their character was hijacked.  Now I will admit that I see that there are times when someone gets injured for life, and of course that should be reflected in the mechanics, I just think that something so permanent shouldn't be something that can just happen, it has to be something big and heavy, so the players realize that they really screwed up there, and it should be very tied into the story and the world, not just, "this happens to this guy because he chose this flaw" or something like that. 

Oh, and I just realized that when I said "this happens to this guy because he chose this flaw" I may have come off as rude, and I want to point out that I am not trying to be offend anyone, that is just how some of this conversation looks like when we're discussing this.  I don't use flaws as a deciding factor in who the mob is gonna nab or something of that sort, I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab. 

[Sichr]

....Also, while that character doesn't need to be completely under the players control, they should be the prime controller of the character, and when messing with the max cap of someones primary skill, you may want to go up to the player and ask if they are cool with you doing that before you do so, simply because you don't want the player to feel like their character got completely hijacked and taken from them. 

....I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab.

Disagree on first, agree on second. Obviously it is about GMing style. I never sk my players if they want some nasty surprises during the game. They know there always is something nasty waiting for them. In fact, the anticipate something wrong in every situation they got in, expecting deadly or crippling trap behind every corner. Some of them plaed even 2nd ed, 15 years ago. And they still like it. Well, it means from time to time someone have to create new character.
Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.

[Leevizer]

Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.

That is fair and all, since they see the ghouls first, and thus have a chance to react. The question should asked before the game, as in, "Hey, are you guys ok if I include Ghouls in the next scenario?" And to make it seem like the players won't know what they'll really face, you can ask about several other things too, and pick one of the ones they agree to want.

Also, the difference between your example and the earlier is like...

"Oh look, Ghouls. What do we do?" compared to... I dunno, waking up in your bed to notice that you have a pack of ghouls going to bite you.

And I know what you will say now. "It's the players fault for not buing a high lifestyle, he should get ghouls biting on him in his sleep!" to which someone else here is going to say "rabblerabblrabble"

[JustADude]

....I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab.

...agree...

Let me ask you this, then... since when is the mage the easiest target to grab? The First Rule of Combat (i.e. "Geek The Mage First") is there for a reason.

A a Street Sam can only shoot and stab you if they go into "cornered animal" mode, but if you try to take a Mage alive, and they have half a chance to fight, they'll rain nine kinds of unholy hell down on your head so fast you won't have time to regret it. Why? Because better half-dead from casting Force 12 area Combat spells and pooching the Drain test than all-dead, or worse, at the hands of whoever is trying to grab them.

And that's not even considering their ability to whistle up some seriously heavy reinforcements in the form of summoning high-force Spirits, assuming they don't have one (or several, if it's a Charisma-tradition Mage) on tap already.

[Sichr]

Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.

That is fair and all, since they see the ghouls first, and thus have a chance to react. The question should asked before the game, as in, "Hey, are you guys ok if I include Ghouls in the next scenario?"

Conform with the rest of the post, for this just a note: Im using a lot of threats that are not even described in rules: Technomantic cyberzombies ripping veils between three worlds bringing hell on whole cities, Materialized disonant Sprites etc. Ghouls are just another part of menu without even need for Chiefs special

[Crash_00]

Well to be honest, as GM you create the background and, with that, the resources, intel, and knowledge that each NPC or group has in that background. When you get right down to it, as a GM you choose who is easiest to grab. Sure, the mage might be able to rain holy hell down if he notices the guys coming to nab him, but there are all manners of nabbing someone. A Tranq patch on a crowded subway platform, a slab dart from across the street as he unlocks his door, the classic snatch and grab with a magemask/collar, or even a simple one two sucker punch on the street.

I'm not saying that mages are always the easiest target, but easiest target is likewise not just easiest to physically get, but also who is easiest/most convenient/most efficient to get. There are likewise plenty of ways of containing a mage and even keeping them from being a threat while contained. And for the not so nice, popping the mage's eyes and blindfolding them can cause some nasty havoc too.

As for asking permission, do I have to ask permission for guard's to use Smartlinks too? I mean that just sounds ridiculous. I can understand asking at the beginning of the campaign "Do you guys want to play, I'm a rough GM." Anything more than that is just flat out unneeded.

[Dracain]

What I meant is that someone shouldn't get their character hijacked without any way to react.  If they are knocked out in a fight, fair enough.  But the ghoul example doesn't really match up, as getting bitten by a ghoul is clearly something that is likely to happen when fighting ghouls.  In comparison we have the character getting nabbed because they took sensitive system and the GM wants to make him pay for it.  The player has no way to really react other than watching as someone else takes their character and screws with it.  I don't pull punches on my players, but if I am gonna screw their stats, I am gonna give them a fair chance to resist and stop what is messing with them.  We can't forget the game part of role-playing game, this is supposed to be fun for everyone, and some people want to have a chance to defend themselves and not have someone just take their character because they are the GM and they can. 

[Sichr]

Im usualy leting them long painful way to some kind of redemption. As for the mage with essence loss, initiation goes towards infinity if you dont let him burnout from one implant. And it also takes 75 karma points to get rid of this quality...

[Dracain]

Im usualy leting them long painful way to some kind of redemption. As for the mage with essence loss, initiation goes towards infinity if you dont let him burnout from one implant. And it also takes 75 karma points to get rid of this quality...

Even with sensitive system a commlink and simrig in his brain will only lower his magic by 1 point.  I just prefer not to tamper with the characters sheets without due notice.  If they LOSE the challenge than they can go through recovering or redeeming themselves.  If they win than there is no problem.  I mean, if they don't have control, what makes this any different from a video game, where their character is getting beaten up because they are either supposed to lose or this is a cutscene.  I provide them with a chance to not get nabbed and taken away and have all sorts of nasty things happen to them.  This chance can be combat or running away or anything they think of, because that's the point of roleplaying games. 

[Crash_00]

I not once said they wouldn't get a chance to notice the sniper/nabber/spiked drink, or that it would be a the game starts and you wake up in a dark room scenario. That said, smart villains, can provide a challenge that is hard to overcome. One sided challenges are not a bad thing, it reminds players that there are people/organizations bigger than them in the world.

I also never once said, start the game and have the mob come after the sensitive system player for no reason. I actually mentioned them pissing off the mob boss. I'm also not talking about implanting the character with full blown skillwires and actually "hijacking" them. Losing a point (that you can raise back to this level) is not hijacking.

[CitizenJoe]

Oh wait, this character pissed off the mob?  Well that's different.  You don't just put a little cyber in, you do the works.  Full sim rig with implanted skillsofts.  Turn the character into a bunraku doll, maybe even a sex change or to really make good use, install cybernetic simulated organs for the trade.  Then make that character turn tricks to pay off the debt.